This is an ancient Chinese curse and, if I were as credulous as those who believe conspiracy theories about 9/11, or as stupid as those who believe the apparent effectiveness of homeopathy is evidence of anything other than the placebo effect, I would have to say that “someone up there doesn’t like us”!

Current efforts to prevent the spread of the contagion of sovereign national debt crises within Europe seem destined to fail; the phone hacking scandal just keeps getting worse; as does the scale of historic record-breaking famines in the Horn of Africa…

So what is to be done? Well, taking heed of George Santayana (i.e. “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it“) would be a good start — and the history we need to remember is not just human; it is geological:

The ability of atmospheric temperature changes to induce ppm CO2 changes over geological time is evident from ice core/isotope data; whereas the evidence for the anthropogenic cause of rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution cannot be disputed. Similarly, the fact that Milankovitch wobbles in the Earth’s axis of rotation cause Ice Ages (which cause CO2 and sea level drops) is not generally disputed; whereas the feedback mechanisms that cause the reverse to happen (i.e. for increased CO2 levels to give rise to temperature and sea level rise) are also indisputable — because we can see them happening already.

With regard to climate modelling, contrary to what stupid people like Lord Monckton will tell anyone willing to listen (and most are because it is what they want to hear), it is the uncertainty in emissions growth predictions that give rise to most of the uncertainty in modelling results. When you retrospectively calibrate predictions using actual emissions data, you find that the models that include all forcings (i.e. solar, pollution and all GHG effects [not just CO2]) are extremely accurate (Henson proved this nearly 20 years ago after the Mt Pinatubo eruption).

However, IPCC predictions have always erred on the side of caution (because of the ludicrously-complicated peer review process they have to go through before publication). Therefore, unsurprisingly, global warming (including the melting of arctic sea ice, the thawing of permafrost, and the increased frequency of extreme weather events etc) is advancing faster than IPCC predicted most-likely.

What more data do you need before you will accept that we cannot afford to abdicate our collective responsibility any longer?

The philosophical roots of scepticism lie in the 3rd Century BC; and the Greek philosopher Pyrrho, who saw scepticism as the logical end-point of intellectual inquiry. According to Pyrrho, the intellectually mature sceptic would still seek knowledge (because he or she “does not claim to know that truth cannot be found”); and would therefore be “prepared to investigate and evaluate any new argument in relation to any conclusion” [see Scepticism by Arne Naess (1968); pages 5-6]. It is self-evidently the case that climate change sceptics do not do this, and do not accept it when their alternative hypotheses are shown to be flawed. Unfortunately, exactly the same “catch-22 situation” has resulted in the ongoing failure of some people to accept that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was and is a complete fraud (hereinafter referred to as the PEZ problem).

In his 1991 book Unnatural Doubts, Michael Williams focused on modern Cartesian scepticism (i.e. named after René Descartes), which proposes that “there is no such thing as knowledge of the external world” (1991: xii). Williams also suggested that the fundamental question regarding scepticism is whether doubts raised are “natural” or “intuitive”; or (as he cited Thompson Clarke as having put it) is the sceptic examining… “our most fundamental convictions [about the nature of reality] or the product of a large piece of [their own] theoretical philosophising about empirical knowledge…?” (ibid: 1). Clearly, climate change “sceptics” are doing the latter; because the fundamentals of the so-called “greenehouse effect” are not in dispute. What is questioned is the primacy of CO2 emissions as the cause of the changes we are witnessing (despite the repeated rebuttal of alternative explanations – i.e. due to the PEZ problem)

In 1996, Timothy Fuller edited and posthumously published what he described as a summary of the thoughts of Michael Oakeshott [1901-1990] on modern politics and government (in The Politics of Faith and the Politics of Scepticism). In this book, scepticism is discussed as a political rather than philosophical entity; with the politics of faith and the politics of scepticism as two poles of political thought: Oakeshott equated the politics of faith with authoritarian control “for the purpose of achieving human perfection” [i.e. utopianism such as that of Karl Marx] (ibid: 24); and the politics of scepticism with government “detached from the pursuit of human perfection” [i.e. a utilitarian approach] (ibid: 31). Therefore, if Oakeshott’s dichotomy may be reduced to one of optimism (idealism) versus pessimism (realism), then climate change sceptics are clearly engaged in the politics of faith; in that they seek to maintain the optimistic belief that AGW is not a real problem.

In 2002, Neil Gascoigne summarised the sceptical position as one that questions the reality of anything and everything we think we know (Scepticism p.1); and cited two arguments used by sceptics to generate doubts, namely (1) the “argument from ignorance” [e.g. we cannot prove we are not dreaming]; and (2) the “Agrippan argument” [e.g. a childish retort of “why” in response to any adult statement of fact] (ibid: 6). Although some climate change sceptics do this in a debating context, this is often to avoid confronting the reality of the weight of scientific evidence arrayed against them; in favour of the existence of an alternative explanation that, they argue, deserves equal consideration (even if it has been repeatedly shown to be erroneous elsewhere – i.e. the PEZ problem once again).

Therefore, whereas blind faith and scepticism should be irreconcilable, in the context of thinking about ongoing AGW, they are indistinguishable: The denial of human responsibility for what is happening to our climate is caused by cognitive disonnance and maintained by confirmation bias. However, just like all the other disinformation campaigns, it is destined to fail; and the sooner the house of cards collapses the better it will be for all of us.
————–
“There is none so blind as those who will not see” (Jeremiah 5:21)

However, 1st Century Jewish leaders (who also had a vested interest in the maintenance of the status quo) asked Jesus to silence his disciples. Luke 19:40 (above) was his response. It is my response also to any and all who continue to place their blind faith in an oil/energy-industry-led conspiracy to “deny, downplay, or dismiss” the reality of AGW; and I will never make an apology for doing so. Therefore, the following are the provisional conclusions of my MA study of climate change scepticism:

Therefore, although many people (mainly economists) attempt to draw analogies between concern for the environment and religious belief, they cannot negate the reality of the Limits to Growth argument because, in addition to being the “greatest market failure in history” (Stern) and “a failure of modern politics” (Hamilton), AGW is the clearest evidence yet that the Earth has a limited capacity to cope with the waste products of human activity (see Limits to Growth: 30 year update [Meadows et al 2005] – type “ability to cope” into the search box and go to p.223 to see context).

Taking action to mitigate and/or adapt to the realities of AGW in a timely fashion has already been delayed by several decades. It is now imperative that this delay should end; and that action should be taken. However, because of the economic and political realities of the world in which we live, politicians will not take any action that will be unpopular with business interests and/or the wider electorate. Therefore, it is also imperative that the disinformation campaign being waged by those with a vested interest in the continuance of “business as usual” be exposed as the real enemies of humanity and the planet.

So why don’t we? Answer: Because it is not yet perceived as an existential threat!

In 2008, the Communist Party of China (CPC) published its very own Climate Change White Paper and, to be fair, it has made progress. But the main reason it has made progress is because the CPC has realised that doing nothing is not an option. It knows that, unless it takes action, AGW will erode its ability to feed its people by melting permafrost, turning farmland into desert, reducing yields per hectare, and flooding fertile coastal plains with seawater (oh and drowning people too).

In China the debate is long since over, so just what will it take for us in the West to accept the gravity of the situation we have got ourselves in? Must we wait until AGW becomes an existential threat to us too? Do we really need any more evidence?

So, it does not matter that the CPC is taking action for purely selfish reasons (although it is good that it has therefore given up blaming the West for creating the problem). However, while we continue to shuffle the deckchairs, China is getting in the lifeboat.

However, it is worse than that, like rich Texans that chuck another log on their living room fire and turn the air conditioning up, we see the Arctic sea ice melting at unprecidented rates and all we can say is, “Oh goody, lets go and grab all that oil we could not get at before!”

As a dog returns to its vomit so a fool repeats his folly. (Proverbs 26:11)

I have been challenged to substantiate the following statement: The only conspiracy is one perpetrated by those with a financial interest in maintenance of the status quo; to encourage the continuing abdication of responsibility for a scientifically-inevitable problem that is already undeniably happening… So, here goes:

Oreskes and Conway’s book, Merchants of Doubt, sets out in great detail the way in which Jastrow, Singer and Seitz decided that, in the absence of Communists, they would fight Environmentalists instead: Oil Companies and Energy companies are only too pleased to fund their disinformation campaigns by bank-rolling organisations such as the George C. Marshall Institute and the Heartland Institute (and before them the Global Climate Coalition).

One of the greatest successes of these Merchants of Doubt has been to make the population at large distrust scientific authority in order to promote sales of the products of their paymasters and/or prevent them going into decline; or even from being banned.

Therefore, in roughly chronological order, they told us that:
smoking cigarettes is sophisticated;
smoking is not harmful;
organic pesticides are more effective than natural predators;
organic pesticides are safe;
CFC’s are not dangerous;
humanity is too insignificant to affect the atmosphere;
the hole in the ozone layer is not there;
CFC’s aren’t causing the hole in the ozone layer;
acid rain does not exist;
we are not causing acid rain;
we can’t afford to prevent acid rain;
pollution is preventing global warming; (this one was true – not that they cared)
humanity is too insignificant to affect climate;
the climate will not change faster than we can adapt to it;
the climate is not changing;
smoking does not cause cancer;
passive smoking is not dangerous; (see footnote below)
we are not causing the climate to change;
we cannot afford to prevent climate change;
climate change has stopped…

Evolutionary biologists argue that the Permian extinction made way, ultimately, for Humans (and that 99% of all known species that have ever lived are already extinct). However, that does not change the fact that, as a terrestrial species, we are now at the front of the queue for extinction; in an event entirely of our own making.

I think I have already made clear my reluctantly-positive view of nuclear energy and that it is long-term madness not to use the 99% of uranium that cannot be put into a conventional thermal (low eV) reactor. Therefore, I am sure that fast neutron/breeder reactor technology will have its day (circa 2050), as is the DECC apparently.

And there’s me thinking that the water vapour content of the atmosphere (typically between 0 and 3 percent) is fairly constant; whereas CO2 has already increased 40% from its pre-industrial level! Then, of course, there is the other much more obvious cause of global warming – sunspot activity! Again, I thought that any apparent correlation between it and temperature rise ceased in 1970 but, no doubt, the IPCC has been lying to me about that too!

In 1965, having accepted expert advice, US President Lyndon B. Johnson told Congress, “This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through… a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.” However, in the 1970s, scientists became worried about global cooling instead because, at the time (so it turned out), the effect of anthropogenic pollution was greater than that of the (exponentially-growing) emissions of carbon dioxide.

In 1982, having not accepted expert advice, the economist Thomas Schelling and physicist Bill Nierenberg told the new US President that global warming would not happen fast enough or soon enough to warrant taking any action. Unfortunately for the Earth, Ronald Reagan believed them (and who can blame him – it was exactly what he wanted to hear!). However, within about 5 years, this advice proved to be wrong because:
(1) new Greenland ice core data showed that climate changes were not always slow;
(2) the hole in the ozone layer showed that mere humans can affect the global climate; and
(3) Jim Hansen testified to Congress that AGW had started and climate change was something we should be worried about (if for no other reason than the inertia in the climate system).

The fossil fuel lobby was certainly worried, but for all the wrong reasons, so they founded the Global Climate Coalition with the express purpose of debunking the climate science that was now threatening their entire business model. However, in 1989, having totally misrepresented Hansen to the White House, the denialist movement really got started – and no-one and nothing was too big or too important to be attacked, discredited, or sued. It is therefore an historical fact – not mere supposition – that four pre-eminent Cold War physicists with no communists to fight, teamed up with the fossil fuel lobby, to fight their new enemy – “alarmist” environmentalists.

However, 3 out of 4 of these archetypal “mad scientists” are now dead so, who is leading the new “Warmist” War today? Good question – one I intend to answer (but not here you will be pleased to know). One thing is clear though, the credulous mass media continues to give “equal time” to contrarian views in a “debate” about global warming that should be over: Arrhenius predicted it in 1896; Hansen detected it in 1988; and Ben Santer attributed it to human activity in 1995. However, because nothing in science is really ever 100% certain (e.g. the sun might not come up tomorrow – it might explode overnight), denialists have tried to convert residual scientific uncertainty into reasonable public doubt. But this is not reasonable doubt, it is unreasonable doubt; and it verges on mass hypnosis – although the people of Uganda are under no illusion about what is happening… When will people in “the West” wake up and see that the delicious apple they have been given – and are eating – is actually a rotten onion?

So, 1995 should have been the end of the story but, mainly due to a Republican-dominated Congress in the late Clinton era, it wasn’t. Instead we are now living in what geologists have already dubbed as the early Anthropocene epoch; although the outcome is still in our hands. So what are we doing about it? Well for some reason, to use an analogy from “The Matrix“, we are still debating whether to swallow the blue pill or the red pill. However, whatever you chose to do, remember this is not myth, fiction, or hoax; this is history – a reality that will not change; however much you deny it.

P.S. The “water vapour is to blame” myth (and all the others) have been debunked by peer-reviewed scientific research, whereas all Fred Singer et al have ever done is come up with plausible-sounding arguments (also known as “lies“); and generally got them published in less-scrupulous places where (unfortunately) many more credulous people would read and believe them.

How does Fred Singer sleep at night? What he did to Roger Revelle (and Al Gore) was the most disgusting piece of cynical manipulation in the long history of cynical manipulation that is climate change denialism…

My previous posting summarised Chapter 1 (a mere 26 pages) of Oreskes and Conway’s brilliant new book; whereas this is an attempt to summarise Chapter 6, “The Denial of Global Warming” (a gargantuan 47 pages). However, fear not, this will be very brief. Having read it (i.e. Chapter 6), I have not got time to do more than outline the central premise of the book, i.e. that the entire edifice of AGW denialism was constructed by a very small band of highly influential intellectuals (none of whom were climate scientists); with Fred Singer (b.1924) seemingly the lynch pin of the whole sordid thing (aided and abetted by the late Robert Jastrow (1925-2008), the late William (Bill) Nierenberg (1919-2000), and the late Frederick Seitz (1911-2008)).

Oreskes and Conway trace the history of AGW denial all the way from the late 70s to the present day. However, the real campaign (as we can recognise it today) kicked-off after James Hansen stated, in his testimony to a Congressional Hearing, that AGW had already started (in June 1988). In the early years, the key corporate players were the George C. Marshall Institute (GCMI), the World Petroleum Congress, and the CATO Institute, with the campaign later being spearheaded by the Global Climate Coalition (GCC).

Apart from the disgraceful antics of Fred Singer (to which I will come to in due course), the worst aspect to the whole thing was the way in which the GCMI – bereft of any communists to fight – turned its guns on those they saw as “alarmist” environmentalists; and James Hansen was their first target: In a highly cynical move, they presented his data (for CO2 only) to the White House in their 1991 report (”Global Warming: What does the science tell us?”) in such a way that their own data (blaming the Sun) seemed to be an infinite improvement on Hansen’s; whereas in fact the complete opposite was – and is – true. This is because they did not present Hansen’s data for CO2 + Volcanoes + Sun (unlike the GCMI, he had considered all the options)… Despite the fact that the IPCC exposed this deliberate misrepresentation of both sets of data, it remained the core of the GCC argument until it was disbanded in 2002 (claiming its work was done).

Fred Singer’s successful campaign to claim that Roger Revelle had changed his mind about AGW before he died (and trash the reputation of Al Gore by association as well) – which included successfully suing for libel those that tried to put the record straight – is well summarised elsewhere. Therefore, I will not do more than to say that, on the expiration of a 10-year gagging order Singer obtained on winning his case, the truth is now in the public domain. However, you will (of course) not find it on any denialist website, so try this one instead!

I could go on but, to be honest, the whole thing makes me feel sick… Furthermore, upon reflection, I think this will have to be the last posting for bit (while absent from My Telegraph, I have been very active on JamesDelingpole.com), as I really must focus on the theoretical groundwork for – as opposed to research on – my MA dissertation on Climate Change Scepticism (but don’t worry I won’t be quoting any of you)…